WASHINGTON — In a sign the U.S. military is scaling back its goals in Afghanistan, senior Pentagon officials are weighing controversial proposals to send additional teams of highly trained special operations forces to narrowly target the most violent insurgent bands in the country.
The proposals are part of an acknowledgment among senior brass that a large-scale influx of conventional forces is unlikely in the near future because of troop commitments in Iraq. It also reflects the urgency to take some action to reverse recent setbacks in Afghanistan.
The idea of sending more special forces has intensified the debate over the best way to fight the Afghan war. As security worsens in the country, many military leaders are concluding that an Iraq-style troop “surge” and counterinsurgency plan would not work because of the country’s rugged geography and a history of resistance to rule from Kabul, the capital.
Unlike Iraq, where large portions of the population are urbanized in the flat plains of the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, Afghanistan is mountainous and dotted with remote villages that are hard to reach with large bodies of conventional forces, several Pentagon officials involved in the Afghan strategy review said.
“It’s a much different place, and to surge forces doesn’t necessarily fit,” said a senior military official involved in the discussions. “This is one of Gen. (David H.) Petraeus’ greatest challenges,” he added, referring to the incoming commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Three separate high-level reviews are under way on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, where American forces have seen their highest death rate since the war began in 2001. According to military officials, the proposal for more special operations teams is being discussed in both the White House’s review and one led by Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Advocates of a plan focused on special operations contend that the top U.S. priority in Afghanistan should be preventing the country from again becoming a terrorist haven, an objective that could be met best by targeted attacks on militants in regions near the Pakistani border.
In addition, the Army’s Green Berets are the U.S. military’s premier unit for training foreign security forces, making them ideally suited for linking up with the small but increasingly competent Afghan National Army to improve its ability to secure the country.
But critics in the Pentagon say the special operations approach would repeat many of the mistakes of Iraq; although the units could attack insurgents in trouble spots, they would not be able to hold ground to keep extremists from coming back.
Other military officials note that only 12 of the 36 special operations units in Afghanistan are being used fully. Many lack the supporting infrastructure — surveillance drones, helicopter transport and intelligence networks — in part because it is still needed in Iraq.
“To add more forces on top of existing forces that haven’t been fully engaged makes no sense,” the senior military official said. “If you don’t know how you’re operating the current force, why do you think adding more forces is going to work?”
According to a senior Pentagon official, among advisers advocating a special operations influx is Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the White House’s Iraq and Afghan “war czar.”
Both presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, have advocated an increase in conventional forces for Afghanistan. The issue of special operations force levels has not been discussed much in the campaign.
A move to a strategy focusing heavily on special operations would be a significant shift for the U.S. military. The current strategy, which is supported by 32,000 U.S. forces and 30,000 NATO troops from other nations, aims to stabilize and secure the country and foster a viable central government.
But some military planners doubt that Afghanistan is capable of the progress that Iraq has achieved.
“Are we really going to take a Karzai government and prop it up?” asked another senior military official, referring to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. “If you’re talking about doing that, I can’t see this ever ending.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
